Some 12th Man members join Yellow Army

IN Saturday’s story about the Yellow Army becoming the main fundraising group for Oxford United following the departure of 12th Man members from the group, we reported that the Yellow Army did not respond when asked for a comment.

This was inaccurate.

We did receive a response from Mark Sennett, chairman of OxVox, which is part of the Yellow Army, on behalf of the group. This was given to us on Friday afternoon but a production error meant it was omitted from the final print version and we apologise for this mistake.

In the response, Mr Sennett explained: “This is a natural evolution and an opportunity for fans to refocus on supporting the youth training schemes.

Share article

“12th Man were a great part of the Yellow Army but they decided to leave the group and the club has had to think about how things will be managed on match days.

“It is great to see a number of 12th Man members have already come over to say they will still work with us. I have loved working with them and hope they will still be involved.”

Related links

Promoted Stories

Comments (3)

Supporters, like the team, should all pull together and bury any differences.

Supporters, like the team, should all pull together and bury any differences.Quentin Walker

Supporters, like the team, should all pull together and bury any differences.

Score: 2

Whitto says...1:10pm Mon 24 Feb 14

So a "production error" meant that the comment wasn't printed, but the paper stated that "no response had been recieved". It was one or the other Ox Mail as you had enough time to print that no comment response had been recieved - so what was it. A production errror or a lie by the journalist that you are now covering for?

So a "production error" meant that the comment wasn't printed, but the paper stated that "no response had been recieved".
It was one or the other Ox Mail as you had enough time to print that no comment response had been recieved - so what was it. A production errror or a lie by the journalist that you are now covering for?Whitto

So a "production error" meant that the comment wasn't printed, but the paper stated that "no response had been recieved". It was one or the other Ox Mail as you had enough time to print that no comment response had been recieved - so what was it. A production errror or a lie by the journalist that you are now covering for?

Score: 1

King Joke says...2:52pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Come on Whitto this is about a very lower-league football club - what possible agenda would a newspaper have in trying to alter a story about it? You know that in the battle between ****-up and conspiracy there is only one winner.

Come on Whitto this is about a very lower-league football club - what possible agenda would a newspaper have in trying to alter a story about it?
You know that in the battle between ****-up and conspiracy there is only one winner.King Joke

Come on Whitto this is about a very lower-league football club - what possible agenda would a newspaper have in trying to alter a story about it? You know that in the battle between ****-up and conspiracy there is only one winner.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here